muppetfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Cantus Rock
The Ghost of Faffner Hall I remember reading somewhere that you were planning on expanding the GoFH episode pages. I've somewhat given it a start, with Episode 103: Sounds Become Music and Episode 104: Music Is More Than Technique. It'd also be cool to add info about the guest stars, especially Robin Williamson (whose website I just found!). Care to lend a hand? (It's quite exhausting to do it by oneself.) --MuppetVJ 05:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC) :Yes yes and a yes!!! This groundwork is exactly the push I need to stop being lazy and actually sit down with that series indepth. I need to do the same thing for BRATS, maybe I can just jump from one right to the other. :) :I'll have to see what my new class schedule is (Tuesday), but time permitting I'll try to get down with an episode a day. I recall a large number of background characters, so some identification issues may arrise. Thanks for reminding me about this!! Oh and by the way I actually have been meaning to ask you this for months; do you have any recommendations on VHS-to-DVD conversion gear? I'm hoping to transfer everything and use my VHS in a "master tape" role (ie. storage somewhere else, rather than wasting 4 perfectly good bookshelfs on those bulky things, haa) --Cantus Rock 08:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) Youth '68 Wow. Did you finally get a chance to see the film, Matt, or did you find a source for the credits? Either way, I'm happy both that we have more details on this, and that we now have Helen Hunt's dad Gordon on the Wiki. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC) :FINALLY got to see it out in California. I've got 3 pages of notes I've been synthesizing. I've got a full page of quoted persons that I'll be getting to shortly. This list is going to make a couple of cool new articles possible (my favorite of which will be Ingmar Bergman, now quoted here and referenced in The Muppets Go to the Movies). :-D --Cantus Rock 16:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) ::Wow! An Ingmar Bergman page would be wonderful. We already have a few connections, thanks to the Swedish''Sesame'' voice actors. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC) YouTube Hey, Matt! I'm primarily frantic with final papers and so forth, so I've mostly been popping in and out briefly, but a heads up. Way back, before you joined, it was decided that while YouTube clips are allowable, they should not be included if the skit or scene is currently included on commercially available, in-print DVD, so we're not potentially cutting into revenue of Sesame Workshop (which we fully support, of course) or increasing the likelihood of Disney bearing down on us. It's an official policy, but it occurs to me that I'm not sure if it's actually written down on any page on the Wiki (we could probably use a YouTube format page anyway; I'll see if I can look into that after finals). Anyway, just wanted you to know, since inclusion of *working* YouTube clips is a great thing, but it's better if they're not of things which can be bought (anything from out of print VHS, or never released, is allowable, though). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :Thats fine, but there definitely needs to be a format page then...possibly even a list of current "off limits" releases so users can easily access each and become familiar with their sketches. I intentionally try not to edit heavily in Sesame Street because of its vast span of years and multitude of sketches, characters, etc. so its not really an issue for me, but I can definitely see potential problems with future contributors if the policy isn't outlined somewhere. --Cantus Rock 17:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::That's what I said. I agree that it's needed. If you want to take a stab, feel free. I don't have time or patience to do so right now. I just wanted to let you know personally. And off limits release list shouldn't be needed, since in cases like "Do De Rubber Duck" and just about everything, we list all known video releases. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::lol, I was just agreeing with what you said man chill...I'll look through some of the Sesame Street releases and see what I can compile and work with to form the basis of the page. Are all VHS releases pretty much considered out of print at this point? --Cantus Rock 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Only these, I would think ... --MuppetVJ 18:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::::Ah okay I see. Thats good. The whole infringement issue and such policies are probably more administrative than my capabilities; when I first saw the Youtube template and links it struck me as odd due to the similar issues with song lyrics and the like. But, I'll get on something workable a little later, and it can go from there I guess. --Cantus Rock 18:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::If you're planning to do so, you might want to look at the Transcript policy, especially the "What Not to Transcribe" portion, since it covers the same limitations we're placing on YouTube links (save the song stuff, since lyric transcription is more problematic, due to search engines and print copyrights, than linking to a video clip of the same song). And sorry if I came off as testy (certainly wasn't intentional), but I'm honestly bogged down and really can't spend time on any lengthy administrative policy whatsnammes, just quick stuff if even that. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::Gotcha, that actually has been the fallback policy page I go to when issues like these arise. And no worries; time and again the interweb plus interpretation confuses the intention of our words. :) --Cantus Rock 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, would it be a good idea to just roll this linking issue and the whole "don't link to commercial sites like Amazon, etc." into one linking policy page? --Cantus Rock 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Time Piece Hey, Matt! Take another look at Talk:Time Piece. I'd like to remove the talkbox if you're satisifed, as the tactegory's getting full up again. If not, give me a specific so we can discuss it, whether a re-phrasing is in order. I double checked, and in fact, almost nothing is interpreted without specific screen evidence (I cited the "SEX" "DAMN" bit, which combined with lingering looks and springing bosoms, if that doesn't denote sexual frustration, than I don't know what does). The main case where it does is all Schreivogel's re integration and the pogo stick boy. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :I'm currently out of town for Thanksgiving, so go ahead and take down the tag; I'll give the info and the film itself a good once-over when I get back into the swing of things (most likely Monday). I've also got some prospective articles waiting at home (one of the most important being Picasso par the mentioned info below), so I'll be aiding in the 12k push. :) --Cantus Rock 04:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC) ::I'd appreciate that! I mean, we have 11 more days. We can do it! We're obsessed enough! -- Andrew Leal (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC) :::Oh yes. And, I just realized I have some plushes here, so more to come even sooner. 120 articles? Pshhh, lets just have a wiki party; we could knock 'em out in no time :-D --Cantus Rock 04:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Clocks Hey, dude -- Good catch on the Salvador Dalí reference in Sex and Violence! I never noticed that; it's awesome. -- Danny (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC) :Oh, and I have another non-clock-related comment. Some programs that take screenshots from DVDs leave thin black bars along the sides -- mine does, and apparently so does yours. When I see that somebody's uploaded a screenshot with the black bars, I usually copy them into a graphics program, cut the bars off the sides and then re-upload the picture. I'm okay with doing that, but obviously it would be easier if you knew how to do it yourself. Is that something that you can do, or should I just do it when I notice it? -- Danny (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ::Thanks dude, yeah I was on an S&V tear last night (See Scarborough Fair too if you haven't, thats how I got on the clocks in the first place, when I probably woke my neighbors laughing)...sometimes I wish the Muppet Show was a bit more like S&V (most especially the randomly changing background decor, that is flat-out hilarity). And with the clocks, I'd say that ref, The Primitives, and Miss Piggy's Treasury of Art Masterpieces gives more than enough for a decent Picasso article, which is awesome! The lover of fine arts in all of us gains reason to rejoice :) ::Oh and yea with the caps, I could go through and edit them no problem...I was just moving at light speed last night with all the edits back-and-forth from watching the DVDs and didn't stop to chop them off. But yeah I can absolutely take care of them, sorry about that. --Cantus Rock 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC) :::Oh, my gosh, I didn't know about the Scarborough Fair clocks either... That's fantastic. Oh, I love the wiki. -- Danny (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Character Lists Hi, Matt! Great info on Puppy Love, but to be frank, isn't a seperate character list rather silly, when there's only five characters, and all named in the synopsis? -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC) :Seperate lists was the format I've used without incident on a number of other books, so I was sticking to that. There needs to be standardization in this area if this is an issue; it shouldn't be handled title-by-title. I don't have a preference as to the format -- I'll follow whatever everyone decides is best. But there needs to be a precident set on the formatting of books, being that there are so many current and potential articles, and that the current entries are sometimes only consistent in the picture and info box placement. If you want to bring it up in Current Events that'd be an option, if not we can discuss further or when I get back from lab tonight.. --Cantus Rock 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ::In the other instances, did you mention *every* character in the synopsis? Some things on the Wiki need to be standardized, but with others, it should be a case by case. I mean, take Dinosaurs episode synopses. We don't mention regular character names in the synopses and then include a seperate list for them. It's just sort of silly. Plus a general Wiki rule is to Wikify a name the first time it's used, and only again if there is a longer list, which we generally reserve for things like the Movies or Muppet Show episodes. Again, I just think it's silly. It's not a Current Events or standardization issue as much as it just being pointlessly repetitive. If you've done it to this extent on other book pages, I and others just probably haven't noticed (though Danny did bring up that one Fraggle Rock book in that old discussion; none of those pages were ever changed, and I don't think it's necessarily vital that they be so, but I think this is just pointless). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC) :::The repeat of information in an article isn't really necessary. I can't see any purpose for splitting it up like that. — Scott (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC) ::::In cases where its strictly repeated, it can be left out. Like I said, the format itself isn't an issue to me: set a standard and follow it is fine by me. But that standard set of guidelines for book needs to be explicitly outlined, for the sake of all people who will potentially be editting book articles. Again, this specific book is not the issue; edit it accordingly (Scott already has I guess). But, this book and all other books should fall under a basic outline which should be stated and published (like the Transcript Guidelines). I'll talk to Danny about this. --Cantus Rock 02:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) :::::I think Matt makes a good point. This is an area where we don't have a consistent format. We have some books where we provide a character list, and some where we don't. It seems obvious that a book with dozens of characters (like Muppets at Sea) could use a character list, but a book with one or two characters (like Ask Kermit: Do Flies Have Eyes?) probably doesn't need one. Given that most books fall between those extremes, I think Matt is right to ask for clarification on what our guidelines are. Without a clear guideline, then it's up to personal preferences, and we start calling each other's edits pointless and silly. :::::One possible format guideline is to say that we do character lists for books that have a certain number of characters -- maybe five. I agree that using that guideline, the Puppy Love page is going to look a little bit lame, because it's currently got two sentences, and then a character list. Still, Puppy Love is a pretty lame book, and not every page has to be brilliant. If folks are really concerned about that page, then we could write a longer synopsis -- even a slightly sarcastic one, like I did with the Muppet Kids books. We could also write about the author or the illustrator, placing this book in the context of their larger body of work. Or we could just leave it alone and forget about it. :::::In general, I think our contributors' feelings are more important than whatever decision we make about the Puppy Love page. I feel like this conversation is getting a little heated. It's not worth it if you "win" the page, and frustrate or turn off an active contributor. Everyone involved in this conversation is an important, productive contributor. -- Danny (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::I didn't mean to add to any heat (heavens knows I'm sensitive to those kinds of discussions myself). At the very least, in a case like Puppy Love, can't the names in the synopsis be linked too? True, though, it's a minor book. I can just let it go if it needs to. I appreciate Matt's contributions and company; it's just that I'd changed his edits and he'd changed mine, so I wanted to discuss it before it turned into a back and forth situation. My apologies. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::Yeah, I thought both should be linked. What do you think about a minimum number of characters to justify a list? -- Danny (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::::A minimum number works. But really, my biggest concern was less the number than the fact that every character name was already in the synopsis. A different example is Gonzo and the Giant Chicken. That works better for me. One, I had the book, and I know there's more characters to be added, and as is, the synopsis and the list aren't complete parallels, even if some, by necessity, are repeated. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::::I actually don't see the problem with the repetitIion on the Giant Chicken page. There's plenty of places where we repeat information for the sake of a handy list. -- Danny (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::I didn't say it was a problem! I was trying to highlight it as something that "works better for me" than this edit of Puppy Love. If the only characters in the book were the three mentioned in the synopsis, that would strike me as a problem. But again, it is a minor issue. If it's decided that books with five characters should be listed even if every character is named in the summary, so be it. I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to make a big thing out of it. The sole reason I brought it up at all was to avoid back and forthing. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC) :::::::::::No, that's cool. I wouldn't want to have a guideline that says that we don't have a character list if every character is mentioned in the synopsis, because it's just too easy to mess up. If you decide to cut a couple sentences from the synopsis, and that takes one of the character names out, then you'd have to create a character list. That seems like a complicated system, compared to a simple guideline that says that there's a character list if there's more than five characters. -- Danny (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) login issues Hi Matt, what's the other wiki you're working on on Wikia? There shouldn't be a login issue between any of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a glitch. Have you tried emptying your cache and deleting all cookies? If you're still having trouble, let me know and I'll see whatI can get out of the tech department. — Scott (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) :Hey Scott, yeah I have a lot of glitchy errors with the other wiki. Its the MST3K Wiki (http://mst3k.wikia.com), which is wayyyy under construction (currently I think I'm the only person working on it). I get all kinds of errors over there, like every time I go to save changes there is some error, but that usually is fixed by clicking save again. The admin over there is long gone, so should I just contact Wikia about it? I'm trying to build that one up from the ground up but its hard when every time I switch back over here to check this one and am either logged in under my other user name or not logged in anymore at all. :(--Cantus Rock 16:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) ::If the admin is long gone over there, you might want to ask Angela to make you a Bureaucrat for that wiki. And I would recommend joining the mailing list as well. — Scott (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC) :::Cool thanks, I just signed up. I had contacted someone about gaining some kind of position above general editor (so I could start forming a team to get the wiki up and running), but they told me: :::Thank you for offering to adopt this Wikia. It would be best if you started to edit there before becoming the new founder. You can do this without adopting the wiki, you just need to start adding content. Once you have done this for a few weeks, and the content is starting to build, then you can write again about adopting. If you need any admin tasks done in the mean time, such as deleting pages, you can ask any of the community team to help out for now. You can write to this email address, or find more contact details at Thanks again, and good luck with getting the wiki back on its feet again. :::I didn't really want to like, replace the founding guy, I just didn't want to go around the MST community advertising for something that isn't really mine (since the founder/sole admin is pretty much gone). The undertaking isn't nearly as vast as the range of this wiki, but there are lots of episodes, movie articles, characters, etc. that need to be covered and I can't do it all by myself, especially without having access to higher-level controls. So, I've just been trying to edit when and where possible, but its really hard for me to start massive articles (like main character articles and the like), so I've only got like a sentence per article. Oy. --Cantus Rock 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Unknown info Hey Matt -- I love the Waffle Jam! summary! You're a brave man to watch and summarize the Animal Jam episodes; I salute you. I took out the parts about things not being correct -- I think if we don't know the correct information, we should just leave it blank, and wait until we have the info. We could put question marks all over the wiki -- there's tons of stuff we don't know or don't have yet -- but I'd rather not draw so much attention to our deficiencies. :) -- Danny (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :Hey Danny, I just got my VCR hooked into the TiVo mainframe so I'm a happy Animal Jam fan!! The reason I left that information in there was because I was more noting the mistake they made in the credits. I emailed John Derevlany about the info, so hopefully he'll mail me back. I think the mistake should be noted once the real information is known though, being that its an interesting piece of technical information (and so rare for something like that to make it to airing and remain in rotation as such). --Cantus Rock 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC) ::I'd agree, but something more muted is in order. I.e. "Note: On the Discovery Channel, this episode mistakenly aired with the closing credit block for Episode Blank" and leave it at that. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :::Yep, once I get the real info that's all it'll be. --Cantus Rock 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Three Ds Hi again, Matt! I don't suppose you have any means of obtaining images from Muppet*Vision 3D? It probably wasn't clear, since their history was deleted as well, but Dorothy and Dinah had been merged into The Three Ds, since the text was identical, no images, and no performer info (since at least we know who played Max). And Debbie gets to stay because she's unseen and thus in a different category. Personally, I don't mind the gals getting their own pages, but if there's anyway to either get images or, by ear, figure out who played them, or even offer a description of how to tell Dorothy and Dinah apart, it would greatly help. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC) :Hey Andrew! The way I came about doing Dorothy's page was because I guess after that merger Dorothy (disambiguation) hadn't been changed, thus a redlink and me thinking "HEY! Dorothy and the D's deserve some pages!!" I'd love to get some pics from MV3D; in fact I think that just about every time I'm there I'm taking pictures. I was planning on doing an extremely indepth MV3D fanpage prior to finding the wiki, so now I guess I'll just move my information over to here. Hopefully when I'm back in Orlando next week I'll be able to juggle a bit and secure a day for me to go nuts and just spend the day in the MV3D area getting pictures and taking notes. --Cantus Rock 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) ::That would be wonderful. I have some photos, in a disposable camera I left in El Paso, sigh, from a brief visit during the summer, but it's good to have an "inside man," so to speak. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC) Archive *Matt's talk page archive